tv [untitled] May 25, 2011 7:30am-8:00am EDT
three thirty pm here in moscow you with thoughts hear stories as president obama pledges with his british counterpart to increase pressure on the libyan leader there's a growing opinion that the defensive tandem has changed too often see only increasing public signs. and thousands of georgian protesters press harder for president saakashvili to resign as many in the country struggled with abject poverty and the corruption. the war in the middle east moves from the front line into online palestinians and israelis clash over facts on the computer. time after some hot
tempered debate over the ongoing palestinian israeli conflict with the people of l. ike his cross talk casts. choppers come to moscow with josh ford's digitized radar upgraded to an automated guided by gyroscopes propelled by power flew engines russian motors ready to move. the future. you can. follow and welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle cox before more talks u.s.
president barack obama's most recent attempt to broker a peace settlement between israel and the palestinians halted only hours after it was announced israel and its allies in the u.s. made it clear that they will have a say when it comes to the terms and conditions of any negotiations is obama's peace ideas already dead on arrival. can. you cross talk the peace process i'm joined by my guest in washington daniel pollack he is co-director of government relations for the zionist organization of america we also have hussein he is the author of the english blog calm and calm this for now lebannon and paul sam he's an adjunct scholar at the middle east institute and a professor of israel studies at the university of maryland ok gentlemen crossed this is cross talk and that means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage it but first let's have a look at the chessboard and some of its pieces. u.s.
president barack obama is space with a daunting task help broker a peace settlement between israel and the palestinians that both parties can live with while the same time be accepted by the international community it is early days but obama's latest initiative has so far only expose the divisions between washington and tel aviv as well as galvanize what is called the israel lobby in the u.s. all the while the palestinians are listening on the sidelines but they're my position is pass american administrations obama said last week that any future settlements should be based within borders established and recognized by international law we believe the borders of israel palestine should be based on the nineteen sixty seven lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are stablished for both states responding to these words israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu told obama he found his vision and physical does the
menstruating a deep divide that could do any u.s. victory revive peace talks and israel's most reliable supporter in the u.s. the american israel public affairs committee or a pac reminded obama any peace talks with the palestinians must have the blessing of what is called the israel lobby in the us the relationship between united states and the jewish state of israel is. common interests and shared values. you wonder stand with great depth that israel is the only country in the middle east that shares america's commitment to freedom democracy and peace obama's words and the same path conference surprisingly showed a different tension as he recast his stance on the one thousand nine hundred seventy forest and was anything but the way about america's commitment to israel's security no vote at the united nations will ever create an independent palestinian state and the united states will stand up against the first
a single israel out at the united nations or in any international forum this rules legitimacy is not a matter for debate that is my commitment that is my pledge told you later netanyahu appearing on par with obama and celebrating joyous israel collaboration this broad support for it is really not its troops. tremendous group. commander strength. my country and so a band of the day the so-called peace process resolving the israeli palestinian conflict is lost play out once the forward to start is back. compromise is a one way of ministration the israelis and a path has been the political calculus for decades but these players have nothing about my face is a very hard reality continue failed policy or children give this conflict everything and something approaching a reset the ball is still in the bomb squad my chair and i across.
ok if i can tell you first hussein in washington i guess around washington today i do think that obama caved. to internal pressure. and just really kind of within a matter of hours he switched gears very very quickly why not go right ahead but i do well i completely disagree with this i think that's a complete i think it's a terribly superficial reading that's been made by people on all sides but i think if you if you look at the text carefully from thursday and the weekend there is no change in policy the stances are exactly the same there was a slight shift in tone in the sense that obama emphasized all the things that the audience would like to hear but he also reiterated his positions a plea negotiations have to be based on the sixty seven borders and other things such as the you know the international impatience including the american impatience
with the lack of progress on peace and the untenable situation that israel finds itself in pursuing this occupation over millions and millions of stateless palestinians for whom it has no solution no answer no plan no method of dealing in the long run so i don't i mean i think if you look past the sugarcoating the substance was absolutely unchanged and if the israelis were unhappy on thursday. they had no particular reason to be happier on the weekend i think part of their outrage was designed to give g.o.p. candidates republican candidates trying to unseat obama in two thousand and twelve cover for issuing denunciations which they did and the also know tony i was covering his right flank in israel and trying not to be outbid by people like i would do or lieberman and other politicians to his right and so i think that there was a lot of political calculus and histrionics here but i don't think obama shifted one
bit ok i think it's a very interesting point and if i can go to you like is there any difference in american policy now from george w. bush to to barack obama. yeah i'm afraid there is i don't agree with you said on that the the difference is that what the president called the nine hundred sixty seven lines which of course are really the one hundred forty nine armistice lines just a quick bit of history which were established when the arab armies from jordan egypt syria and even lebannon invaded israel following its birth so those are the armistice lines where the armies happened to stop their invasion that's not an international law line in fact the international law that applies is un resolution two forty two which calls for secure borders for israel and envisions that the disputed territory what we now call the israelis call today and some area and many of you if you really know what it is the west bank say something is just one second
let me just finish this first point that those that the disputed territory is. under the palestinian authority taishan all going to go to the arab side in fact it's disputed territory the un resolution two forty two envisioned that israel would have secure borders trading some of that land for peace that's what they did on the border with egypt when they made peace there and that's what the ultimate peace be based on resolution two forty two ok so the so-called one hundred sixty seven lines can i mean i was behind this guy was going to jump to paul and ask him are these disputed territories or these disputed territories because most interest dollars of international law will say these are these are this is an occupation going on there and that under international law is the occupation must come to an end go ahead you've got the floor. i'm a lawyer by training but i don't think international law can be
the ultimate resort in the party this is a political speech and there is in till we have the world government which we won't and i don't think we can wait that long it has to be resolved. i think. in this carol. obama said he said based on the nine hundred sixty seven borders which has been the assumption for years look at the new good. between prime minister olmert president abbas just a few years ago what he's doing and all of the. excitement is absolute was absolutely foreseeable is
he said ing town a marker saying that the border. changes will be comparatively minor and they have to be reciprocal and read by both parties this is not a contrary to george bush what is different i agree is the tone and the starting point ok go ahead jump in apology become. a whole hold on a certain. there are a couple things here first. it's proper to invoke to for truth the basis for what obama was referring to in terms. of sixty seven borders with land sources i do think it's been implicit since two for two but you can't invoke two for two and then question the fact that israel is the occupying power in those territories
because two for two specifically designates israel the occupying power to first the territories occupied by israel in the recent conflict and the preamble to two for two reiterates the length of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war so you know what we're dealing with then is what was laid out in two parts by the bush administration in two thousand and four his letter to prime minister sharon where he said the agreement would have to reflect changes on the ground in other words some settlement blocks probably will be annexed to israel and then the persons that understood that from the mid ninety's on and his statement in two thousand and five that any changes to the armistice line of one hundred forty and i would have to be mutually agreed upon in other words this is by the way another important security council resolution which is for seven six for nine hundred eighty. israel has to withdraw from jerusalem so it is not as if two
four two four seven six the security council resolutions give israel the option of keeping all of jerusalem is not only out he was talking about that is that is not ok according to the un security council and international law i can but again before we go to the break and thirty seconds before we go to break i had. well i dispute that as well i don't have enough time to go into the details there but the fact is we have to ask ourselves why did president obama bring up this controversial issue in this way at this time and the answer has to do with something we should go into the hamas fatah agreement but i must the past agreement and the arab refusal to meet for direct talks with israel is the real obstacle to peace right now and unfortunately and it may just be here we're going to break here after that show break we'll continue our discussion on the so-called peace process state party. led to.
the political system. welcome back across the top i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're talking about obama's peace initiative. ok. ok dan if i can go back to you at apec the executive director of the organization warned obama against treating both israel and the palestinians quote even handedly that's a pretty interesting statement treat both of them differently how do you how do you interpret that. well it's really simple the united states is an ally of israel and
both countries share both the security concerns and alliance and we work together well apparently and economically the reason that that's the correct thing to say is that israel is going to be asked in any peace agreement to give up something tangible its territory that contrary to the way some people have put it i do agree with paul it's ultimately political but israel does not recognize that what the jews called today and some area is someone else's territory we think it's ours and that's something that people often don't seem to understand so israel is being asked to sacrifice a tremendous amount and they're simply not going to do it unless there is a conflict and the recognition that israel is the state of the jewish people and that there is not going to be no further territorial demands you know that the core issue in the middle east unfortunately is often placed as though it were a territorial issue and actually it's about the world's recognition and
particularly arab recognition that there should be a jewish state in israel once you get that part settled all the details about territory well the other details are easily are actually easily saw you know it was made here to the fundamental question is that you know this is good that war is alive and i think forty eight nine hundred sixty seven started when israel did not control some area or ok i'm going to find out if i go to hussein here hussein i mean that there's a few countries in the world breaking the ice israel's ok go ahead hussein ok i mean is that really really. i mean listen it can't be a recognition issue because the p.l.o. which is the sole legitimate representative of the procedure people recognize israel formally in the letters of recognition of mutual recognition in nineteen ninety three and formally committed to recognizing the state of israel you return the state of israel only recognize. the p.l.o.
as the legitimate representing the policy of people so you know the arab league has adopted the arab peace proposal which which which offers israel normalization of all the arab states in return for withdraw from occupied territories and israel has peace treaties with egypt and jordan and it has recognition from the sole legitimate representative of the palestinian people what we have fortunately really is a territorial dispute because last monday i mean seven days ago eight days ago prime minister netanyahu gave a speech before the knesset in which he said there would be no negotiations on jerusalem annexation of settlement blocks without distinguishing between them long term israeli military presence in the jordan valley and along the jordan river and other demands that really need gate the possibility of the creation of a palestinian state so to downplay the territorial question is wrong now let me point out something to dad he's right most israelis regard what they call judea and samaria and the whole rest of the world calls the occupied palestinian territories
as part of their patrimonial homeland find that's true and you have to understand palestinians see all of israel also as part of their patrimonial homeland and in one nine hundred forty seven forty eight when israel was created palestinians were at least three quarters majority now when they recognize israel in its sixty seven borders they gave up seventy eight percent of what they regard as their country it is the mother of all compromises and i think to ignore that and to to look at the occupied territories in isolation from the rest of mandatory file aside and say oh poor israel's being asked to give up this very important territory that so dear to us ignores what palestinians are already agreed to giving up the overwhelming majority of what they regard as right let's be fair here that speech areas. like the taliban. yeah i like to recalled what former
is true rarely foreign minister r.p. even says bad is true or twenty years ago it has still learn to take yes for in answer and the arabs say as. saying pointed out have been offering peace and recognition to israel since two thousand and two at our price you know your surges lead they want to sorry but you can also serve for people like you sixty seven lines where auschwitz for porters there is a wide consensus. thing only minor league ball is many times greg did that characterization with sadly it is both in the arab political and military situations have changed
absolutely and fundamentally since both forty eight and sixty seven this point unlike forty eight israel is the most powerful country in the region israeli security has to be assured but there are plenty of things in place suit take care of that and of course these have to be recognized in the peace agreement what this is about par on the sea and wish for you old why mary and witches want to rattle the ends let me go one more sens israel wants to keep the settlements with. sane pointed out have been declared a counter. to international law and opposed by everyone.
gentlemen let's see this is a mistake was i. was really i want to go to ok but again because i want to be fair to everybody i agree with paul that's ultimately. about coming to an agreement that is agreeable to all sides could begin to mention the elephant in this room is hamas and the power that they weld in gaza and the hamas fatah agreement what fatah did what the p.a. palestinian authority did and you green this deal with hamas is essentially completely sabotaged the entire american approach to peace and that's what's really happening today the united states law as both of you gentlemen well know prohibit any united states aid to any entity that is controlled or repertoire has in it elements of a terrorist organization hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the us by the european union and really by anyone with little common sense as been lobbing missiles into israel for years and killing
thousands of civilians you know hussein i'd like. to see can i can i can i just really join some more hearings because because they are there because this is the same conversation we've been having for twenty years on this i want to ask both of you guys a question here and we get into a one state solution now because it looks like go ahead hussein because you know the more we delay this here no hussein first go ahead. ok thank you know no we're not. there there is no such thing as a one state solution fact we have a one state exactly exactly and it is it is very right and it is extremely ugly and there is no way to fix it internally so the only solution there might be a one state outcome after decades of horrible bloody conflict in which both sides are so decimated and exhausted to give up their national projects but for the foreseeable future in my lifetime there will be no one state open quote solution
close quote what they will be is either a two state peace agreement or a ongoing and increasingly bitter bloody and religious conflict we have to avoid can i make two quick points against the present president on the hamas deal president obama said he raises important and legitimate questions for which policies have to provide a clear answer that's right that's the international position they want to see how this is implemented you know no there is no nobody knows what the details of what this is actually going to look like or so to leap to the conclusion that hamas is going to control this government or have a major part in or have representation in the cabinet or have any diplomatic role is making a huge assumption that isn't justifiable at all ok dan you want to jump in there are going to play head here. to say the the entire palestinian holistic big picture consists of the following the agreement with hamas refusal to
engage in direct talks and continued incitement these things together really last question so it appears that the palestinians are trying to achieve their goals without negotiations of any kind and here we are looking exactly the same position against israel you know that said no no you're a crazy director i was told. no you. pick up. i'd like to pick up. a point because green hamas is the eight hundred pound gorilla u.k. and ovoid dealing with it i mean that hamas has the seeds at the table what hamas is said in lipstick all ways and has to be possible otherwise they can't
have any influence is there and thirty per cent of the palestinians has to allow the p.a. under a bus to do the. with the israel are on the right gentlemen gentlemen we're trying to. have between you we're almost out of time i'd like to give dan the last thirty seconds go ahead. thanks so much the problem with various is that wishful thinking won't make hamas actually. engage in a conflict ending agreement their good will and their intentions are very suspect israel the vast majority of israel's israelis want peace but they won't trust any government that has participation by hamas to keep it and israel's not going to
make the kinds of concessions that the palestinians will want for peace under any participation by hamas so the last point is i agree there may not be a one state solution in the near term but there also may not be a two state solution as long as the arab side doesn't view it as a conflict ending or a gentleman will run out of time here we've run out of time i sincerely thank all of my guests today in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at our keith see you next time and remember rastafarians.